DOCSLIB.ORG

Selecting Biophysical Indicators for Economic Valuation of Nonuse Ecosystem Services Robert J

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Selecting Biophysical Indicators for Economic Valuation of Nonuse Ecosystem Services Robert J Selecting Biophysical Indicators for Economic Valuation of Nonuse Ecosystem Services Robert J. Johnston George Perkins Marsh Institute A Community on Ecosystem Services (ACES) December 4-6, 2018 Nonuse Values • Portions of total economic value (WTP or WTA) that are unobtainable using indirect measurement techniques that rely on observed (market) behavior. • Values that can be held without behavioral evidence. • No behavioral trail → only measurable using stated preference methods. • Common types of nonuse values include (a) existence values, (b) bequest values, (c) altruistic values. • Focus here on existence values, but similar findings apply to other types of nonuse value. 2 Why are These Values Important? An Illustrative Example • EPA Benefits Analysis for the Final Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Rule EPA-821-R-14-005 estimates nonuse benefits of reductions in impingement mortality and entrainment (IM&E). • Estimates assume that households only hold nonuse values for IM&E reductions in their own region (Northeast, Southeast, Inland and Pacific) → lower bound estimates. • National nonuse value of IM&E reductions were $1.1 billion per year (Table 11-13). Estimated using stated preference survey by US EPA. • Modest per household; large in aggregate. This is a typical pattern. • National benefits excluding these estimated values were $28.7 million per year (p. 13-8). 3 Challenges for Indicator Development • Expectations exist regarding types of ecological outcomes associated with existence values, but few necessary rules. • In theory, a person can hold an existence value for almost anything. • Sometimes the same indicators can be used for use and existence (or other nonuse) values, where these values are motivated by the same underlying ecological change. • But, indicators unlikely to serve as good indicators for use values can be suitable indicators in a existence context. • What does the economic literature tell us about biophysical quantities and qualities valued by existence beneficiaries? 4 Where Can We Obtain Insight? • Observable human behaviors do not provide a means to quantify existence values or identify superior indicators. • Insight is generally gained through methods such as • Stated preference techniques • Focus groups, interviews and other qualitative approaches • Decades of data from these methods provides a foundation but does not answer all questions definitively. 5 Evidence to Guide Indicator Development—What Do We Know? • Existence values are often associated with • Things viewed as characteristic of a location— “what makes this place special” • Unique, rare or threatened ecosystems or species • Things with established cultural or historical linkages • Things that provide large use values (use and nonuse values are often correlated) • Maintaining functional ecosystems in a holistic sense. • Start with understanding underlying motivation for value. • Example: Focus group respondents expressing values for the condition or “health” of the ecosystem as a whole, distinct from individual species or components of the system. 6 Evidence to Guide Indicator Development—What Do We Know? • Good indicators for valuation should be (Schultz et al. 2012): • Measurable: Clearly stated relationship to ecological data or model results. • Interpretable: Understood similarly by respondents and scientists. • Applicable: Directly and proximally related to the value it is intended to measure. • Would people be willing to pay for a change in the indicator, assuming (a) no personal use, and (b) no other ecological changes? Do they understand what it conveys? 7 Examples of Indicators Used to Capture Nonuse Values • Wildlife Species: Official status (e.g., threatened), abundance, distribution, viability, diversity, mortality. • IBIs and similar multimetric indicators to capture holistic ecosystem condition (Johnston et al. 2011). • Land cover/use, where these land features are valued directly (e.g., due to cultural relevance). • Water and air quality measures (e.g., WQIs or ladders); sometimes direct pollution reductions. • Measures of aesthetics for iconic assets (e.g., clarity for Lake Tahoe, visibility for Grand Canyon). 8 Example—An Index of Biotic Integrity (Pawtuxet Watershed (RI) Fish Passage Restoration) 9 Households Value IBI Improvements— Holding Use Value Indicators Constant • IBI calculated as an unweighted linear combination of eight unimetric sub-indices on a 0-100 relative scale. • Reference condition based on Wood-Pawcatuck considered to be most pristine in Rhode Island. Percentiles Variable WTP Pr > |t| (1%, 99%) acres 1.0910 (0.39, 2.03) <0.01 PVA 0 .4136 (0.11, 0.86) <0.01 access 27.3285 (15.87, 43.70) <0.01 IBI 1.1879 (0.01, 2.42) <0.01 catch 0.0688 (-0.38, 0.56) 0.72 wildlife 0.6369 (0.15, 1.17) <0.01 10 Example from US EPA 316(b) Regulatory Analysis—Fish Mortality and IBI 11 Significant WTP for Mortality Change and Sometimes for Aquatic Condition 90% Confidence Interval (Simulated Empirical Mean Distribution) 5th 95th Northeast com_fish $10.30 $6.45 $14.86 fish_pop $3.09 -$4.53 $10.89 fish_saved $1.44 $0.95 $2.07 aquatic $9.76 $1.44 $19.01 Southeast com_fish $2.10 $0.16 $4.11 fish_pop -$0.69 -$3.81 $2.48 fish_saved $0.62 $0.42 $0.83 aquatic $1.43 -$2.01 $4.75 12 Results Vary Across Regions 90% Confidence Interval (Simulated Empirical Mean Distribution) 5th 95th Pacific com_fish $5.37 -$1.37 $13.60 fish_pop $7.71 -$2.32 $18.53 fish_saved $1.77 $1.07 $2.62 aquatic $15.32 $5.01 $27.48 Inland com_fish $0.69 -$0.67 $2.08 fish_pop $0.28 -$1.83 $2.48 fish_saved $0.50 $0.28 $0.70 aquatic $1.47 -$0.78 $3.68 13 An Example Using Species ESA Status • Illustrative choice question and species ranges. • For nearly all individuals these are existence values. • Example of “iconic” assets. 14 Willingness to Pay for Status Improvements (t=threatened; r=recovered) Variable WTP Monk Seal_t $24.53** Monk Seal_r $58.84*** UWR Chinook_r $27.38*** PS Chinook_r $22.78** Summary Comments • The literature provides insight into indicators that can be successful in existence valuation case studies. • Supported by unpublished data from hundreds of focus groups. • This is not the same as identifying a generalizable set of biophysical existence value indicators. • There is evidence of existence value for ecological condition, but controversy over multimetric indicators. • These indicators should be taken seriously… • It is important to consider the “resolution” at which non- experts understand indicators. • Greater attention to these issues is required. 16 Partial List of Relevant Citations • Boyd J., P. Ringold, A. Krupnick, R.J. Johnston, M.A. Weber and K. Hall. 2016. Ecosystem Services Indicators: Improving the Linkage Between Biophysical and Economic Analyses. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics 8: 359–443. • Johnston, R.J., E.T. Schultz, K. Segerson, E.Y. Besedin and M. Ramachandran. 2012. Enhancing the Content Validity of Stated Preference Valuation: The Structure and Function of Ecological Indicators. Land Economics 88(1): 102-120. • Johnston, R.J., K. Segerson, E.T. Schultz, E.Y. Besedin and M. Ramachandran. 2011. Indices of Biotic Integrity in Stated Preference Valuation of Aquatic Ecosystem Services. Ecological Economics 70(11): 1946-1956. • Olander, L.P., R.J. Johnston, H. Tallis, J. Kagan, L.A. Maguire, S. Polasky, D. Urban, J. Boyd, L. Wainger and M. Palmer. 2017. Benefit Relevant Indicators: Ecosystem Services Measures that Link Ecological and Social Outcomes. Ecological Indicators (Print Version in Press). • Schultz, E.T., R.J. Johnston, K. Segerson and E.Y. Besedin. 2012. Integrating Ecology and Economics for Restoration: Using Ecological Indicators in Valuation of Ecosystem Services. Restoration Ecology 20(3): 304-310. • US EPA. 2014. Benefits Analysis for the Final Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Rule EPA-821-R-14-005. Washington, DC. • Zhao, M., R.J. Johnston and E.T. Schultz. 2013. What to Value and How? Ecological Indicator Choices in Stated Preference Valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 56(1): 3-25. 17 Robert J. Johnston Director, George Perkins Marsh Institute Professor, Department of Economics Clark University 950 Main St. Worcester, MA 01610 Email: [email protected].
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biocultural Indicators to Support Locally Led Environmental Management and Monitoring
    Copyright © 2019 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance. DeRoy, B. C., C. T. Darimont, and C. N. Service. 2019. Biocultural indicators to support locally led environmental management and monitoring. Ecology and Society 24(4):21. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11120-240421 Synthesis Biocultural indicators to support locally led environmental management and monitoring Bryant C. DeRoy 1,2, Chris T. Darimont 1,2 and Christina N. Service 1,2,3 ABSTRACT. Environmental management (EM) requires indicators to inform objectives and monitor the impacts or efficacy of management practices. One common approach uses “functional ecological” indicators, which are typically species whose presence or abundance are tied to functional ecological processes, such as nutrient productivity and availability, trophic interactions, and habitat connectivity. In contrast, and used for millennia by Indigenous peoples, biocultural indicators are rooted in local values and place- based relationships between nature and people. In many landscapes today where Indigenous peoples are reasserting sovereignty and governance authority over natural resources, the functional ecological approach to indicator development does not capture fundamental values and ties to the natural world that have supported social-ecological systems over the long term. Accordingly, we argue that the development and use of biocultural indicators to shape, monitor, and evaluate the success of EM projects will be critical to achieving ecological and social sustainability today. We have provided a framework composed of criteria to be considered when selecting and applying meaningful and efficacious biocultural indicators among the diverse array of potential species and values. We used a case study from a region now referred to as coastal British Columbia, Canada, to show how the suggested application of functional ecological indicators by the provincial government created barriers to the development of meaningful cogovernance.
    [Show full text]
  • Ascendency As Ecological Indicator for Environmental Quality Assessment at the Ecosystem Level: a Case Study
    Hydrobiologia (2006) 555:19–30 Ó Springer 2006 H. Queiroga, M.R. Cunha, A. Cunha, M.H. Moreira, V. Quintino, A.M. Rodrigues, J. Seroˆ dio & R.M. Warwick (eds), Marine Biodiversity: Patterns and Processes, Assessment, Threats, Management and Conservation DOI 10.1007/s10750-005-1102-8 Ascendency as ecological indicator for environmental quality assessment at the ecosystem level: a case study J. Patrı´ cio1,*, R. Ulanowicz2, M. A. Pardal1 & J. C. Marques1 1IMAR- Institute of Marine Research, Department of Zoology, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, University of Coimbra, 3004-517, Coimbra, Portugal 2Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies, University of Maryland, Solomons, Maryland, 20688-0038, USA (*Author for correspondence: E-mail: [email protected]) Key words: network analysis, ascendency, eutrophication, estuary Abstract Previous studies have shown that when an ecosystem consists of many interacting components it becomes impossible to understand how it functions by focussing only on individual relationships. Alternatively, one can attempt to quantify system behaviour as a whole by developing ecological indicators that combine numerous environmental factors into a single value. One such holistic measure, called the system ‘ascen- dency’, arises from the analysis of networks of trophic exchanges. It deals with the joint quantification of overall system activity with the organisation of the component processes and can be used specifically to identify the occurrence of eutrophication. System ascendency analyses were applied to data over a gradient of eutrophication in a well documented small temperate intertidal estuary. Three areas were compared along the gradient, respectively, non eutrophic, intermediate eutrophic, and strongly eutrophic. Values of other measures related to the ascendency, such as the total system throughput, development capacity, and average mutual information, as well as the ascendency itself, were clearly higher in the non-eutrophic area.
    [Show full text]
  • ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT AN]) Appropriathd CARRYING CAPACITY: a TOOL for PLANNING TOWARD SUSTAINABILITY
    ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT AN]) APPROPRIAThD CARRYING CAPACITY: A TOOL FOR PLANNING TOWARD SUSTAINABILITY by MATHIS WACKERNAGEL Dip!. Ing., The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ZUrich, 1988 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (School of Community and Regional Planning) We accept this thesis as conforming to the r ired standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1994 © Mathis Wackernagel, 1994 advanced In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an Library shall make it degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the that permission for extensive freely available for reference and study. I further agree copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. (Signature) ejb’i’t/ Pios-ii’ii &toof of C iwivry Gf (i l r€dva k hi di’e The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date O 6) ) DE-6 (2/88) ABSThACT There is mounting evidence that the ecosystems of Earth cannot sustain current levels of economic activity, let alone increased levels. Since some consume Earth’s resources at a rate that will leave little for future generations, while others still live in debilitating poverty, the UN’s World Commission on Environment and Economic Development has called for development that is sustainable. The purpose of this thesis is to further develop and test a planning tool that can assist in translating the concern about the sustainability crisis into public action.
    [Show full text]
  • About This File
    AUTHORS Bruce G. Marcot is the regional wildlife ecologist in the Ecological Framework for Management Research, Development, and Application Program, Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Department of Agri- culture, Forest Service in Portland, Oregon. Michael J. Wisdom is the technology transfer scientist at the Starkey Experimental Forest, Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service in La Grande, Oregon. Hiram W. LI is a professor in the Department of Fish and Wildlife at Oregon State University in Corvallis, Oregon. Gonzalo C. Castillo is a graduate student at Oregon State University in Corvallis, Oregon. Managing for Featured, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species and Unique Habitats for Ecosystem Sustainability Bruce G. Marcot, Michael J. Wisdom, Hiram W. Li, and Gonzalo C. Castillo From Volume III: Assessment Paul F. Hessburg, Science Team Leader and Technical Editor Eastside Forest Ecosystem Health Assessment Richard L. Everett, Assessment Team Leader Published by: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station General Technical Report PNW-GTR-329 February 1994 In cooperation with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region ABSTRACT Marcot, Bruce G.; Wisdom, Michael J.; Li, Hiram W.; Castillo, Gonzalo C. 1994. Managing for fea- tured, threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and unique habitats for ecosystem sustainability. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-329. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 39 p. (Everett, Richard L., assessment team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment; Hessburg, Paul F., science team leader and tech. ed., Volume III: assessment.) The traditional approach to wildlife management has focused on single species—historically game species and more recently threatened and endangered species.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenges in the Development and Use of Ecological Indicators Virginia H
    Ecological Indicators 1 (2001) 3–10 Challenges in the development and use of ecological indicators Virginia H. Dale a,∗, Suzanne C. Beyeler b,1 a Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6036, USA b Institute of Environmental Sciences, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45058, USA Accepted 7 March 2001 Abstract Ecological indicators can be used to assess the condition of the environment, to provide an early warning signal of changes in the environment, or to diagnose the cause of an environmental problem. Ideally the suite of indicators should represent key information about structure, function, and composition of the ecological system. Three concerns hamper the use of ecological indicators as a resource management tool. (1) Monitoring programs often depend on a small number of indicators and fail to consider the full complexity of the ecological system. (2) Choice of ecological indicators is confounded in management programs that have vague long-term goals and objectives. (3) Management and monitoring programs often lack scientific rigor because of their failure to use a defined protocol for identifying ecological indicators. Thus, ecological indicators need to capture the complexities of the ecosystem yet remain simple enough to be easily and routinely monitored. Ecological indicators should meet the following criteria: be easily measured, be sensitive to stresses on the system, respond to stress in a predictable manner, be anticipatory, predict changes that can be averted by management actions, be integrative, have a known response to disturbances, anthropogenic stresses, and changes over time, and have low variability in response. The challenge is to derive a manageable set of indicators that together meet these criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of the Applicability of a Marine Biotic Index to Characterize the Status of Estuarine Ecosystems: the Case of Mondego Estuary (Portugal) F
    Ecological Indicators 4 (2004) 215–225 Evaluation of the applicability of a marine biotic index to characterize the status of estuarine ecosystems: the case of Mondego estuary (Portugal) F. Salas a,∗, J.M. Neto a, A. Borja b, J.C. Marques a a Institute of Marine Research (IMAR), c/o Department of Zoology, University of Coimbra, 3004-517 Coimbra, Portugal b AZTI, Departamento de Oceanograf´ıa y Medio Ambiente Marino, Herrera Kaia, Portualdea s/n, 20110 Pasaia (Gipuzkoa), Spain Accepted 2 April 2004 Abstract The need for new tools to assess the environmental status of coastal and estuarine systems encouraged Borja et al. [Mar. Pollut. Bull. 40 (2000) 1100] to develop a new index, the AZTI’s Marine Biotic Index (AMBI), which needs to be tested as much as possible in different geographical areas to assess its applicability. This index was applied in the Mondego estuary (western coast of Portugal) together with the Shannon–Wiener, Margalef, Simpson, and W-statistic indices, which are widely used in detecting the effects of marine pollution. Results show that, in some cases, the AMBI provides a more accurate assessment of environmental conditions than the other indices, which were influenced by the dominance of certain species, allowing us to consider it as a promising tool to characterize marine and estuarine environmental quality. © 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Benthos; Environmental quality; Estuaries; Marine biotic index; Soft-bottom; Water Framework Directive 1. Introduction natural and man-induced changes to the environment, integrating long-term environmental conditions. There is an increasing need for techniques capable For the development of the AMBI, the soft-bottom of evaluating changes in the coastal and estuarine en- macrofauna is divided into five groups according to vironments.
    [Show full text]
  • Amphibians As Ecological Indicators
    Amphibians as Ecological Indicators As our environment rapidly changes from various threats, we are left to wonder exactly what the implications and effects of these impacts are. A clue to examine these impacts, or even monitor restoration efforts, can be considered with the use of an ecological indicator. An ecological indicator can be defined by the EPA as, “A measure, an index of measures, or a model that characterizes an ecosystem or one of its critical components.” With this perspective, ecological indicators can be used to assess environmental conditions and trends over time. Amphibians have often been thought to serve as a particularly desirable indicator species. They utilize both aquatic and terrestrial habitats, as dictated through their biphasic life cycle, and their skin is permeable. For these reasons, they are considered to be more sensitive (in both habitats) to environmental changes and stressors than other species (Blaustein et al. 1994). In addition, many species can usually be found in abundance and monitoring efforts are considered effective. Most amphibians are very predictable as far as their reproductive queues. Observing changes in the behavior of amphibians can indicate potential environmental contaminants or pollution sites (Hammer et al. 2004). Abundance and populations of species can illustrate the overall health of the ecosystem and habitat quality. For example, if a significant increase in population is noted, one indication may be for very favorable conditions in the environment with this species; often more precedent than even vegetative responses. A program hoping to utilize an example such as the previous scenario is the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project (CERP).
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring Ecological Complexity
    Ecological Indicators 10 (2010) 1069–1076 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Ecological Indicators journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind Review Measuring ecological complexity Lael Parrott ∗ Complex Systems Laboratory, Département de géographie, Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128 succursale “centre-ville”, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3C 3J7 article info abstract Article history: Complexity is an elusive term in ecology that is often used in different ways to describe the state of an Received 8 October 2009 ecosystem. Ecological complexity has been linked to concepts such as ecological integrity, diversity and Received in revised form 3 February 2010 resilience and has been put forth as a candidate ecological orientor. In this article, the concept of complex- Accepted 26 March 2010 ity as a system attribute is presented and candidate measures of ecological complexity are reviewed. The measures are distinguished by their ability to characterize the spatial, temporal, structural or spatiotem- Keywords: poral signatures of an ecosystem. Many of these measures have been adapted from disciplines such as Ecological complexity physics and information theory that have a long history of quantifying complexity, however more work Complex systems Ecological orientors needs to be done to develop techniques adapted to ecological data. It is argued that if appropriate mea- Entropy sures are developed and validated for ecosystems, ecological complexity could become a key ecological indicator. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Contents
    [Show full text]
  • A PROPOSED FRAMEWORK for IDENTIFYING and EVALUATING ECOSYSTEM SERVICE TRADEOFFS for MARINE PROTECTED AREA PLANNING Michael Harte
    IIFET 2010 Montpellier Proceedings A PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR IDENTIFYING AND EVALUATING ECOSYSTEM SERVICE TRADEOFFS FOR MARINE PROTECTED AREA PLANNING Michael Harte, Oregon State University, [email protected] Randall Rosenberger, Oregon State University, [email protected] Gil Sylvia, Oregon State University, [email protected] Selina Heppell, Oregon State University, [email protected] ABSRACT Existing research on the effectiveness of marine protected areas narrowly focuses on developing sets of management indicators tied to outcomes described in management plans or on the achievement of a single objective such as an increase in the size or number of older, more fecund female fish in a protected area. These approaches, however, fail to capture the dynamic complexity of social, cultural, economic and ecological processes, uncertainty, and tradeoffs associated with the establishment and operation of marine protected areas. Moreover, there is usually little recognition of local coastal communities, including fishing communities, and the values they hold in the evaluation of the relative benefits and costs of marine protected areas. We describe a framework for evaluating and assessing economic and ecosystem tradeoffs associated with marine protected areas and other forms of marine spatial planning. This framework integrates biophysical data and community-based social and economic evaluation methods. It identifies ecosystem services, their benefits and associated uncertainties in assessing the economic and social tradeoffs associated with changes in the use of the marine environment. Keywords: Ecosystem Services, Marine Protected Areas, Stated Preferences, Trade-off Analysis INTRODUCTION Existing research on marine protected area (MPA) effectiveness focuses on developing sets of management indicators tied to outcomes listed in a MPA management plan (see Pomeroy et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Assessment & Indicators Research
    U.S. EPA Office of Research STAR and Development’s Science To Achieve Results (STAR) REPORT Research in Progress Vol.2 Issue 2 Mar. 1998 A product of the National Center for Environmental Research and Quality Assurance ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT & INDICATORS RESEARCH One of EPA’s major strategic goals is to ing efforts of EMAP and other federal programs, will be restore and maintain the health and biological considered in developing future coordinated national diversity of ecosystems, while supporting sus- assessments of ecological conditions, as well as for tainable economies and communities. How- assessments at regional and watershed scales. ever, our understanding of the interactions In 1996 and 1997, EPA’s external research program, among the living things and habitats that make Science to Achieve Results (the “STAR program”) pro- up healthy ecosystems is still limited. We lack vided funds adequate indicators and assessment approaches for develop- to characterize ecosystem health at large or ing ecosys- tem indica- small spatial scales. A good ecological indicator tors and is a measure of one or more ecological factors assessment that, in a repeatable and well understood way, approaches reflects the overall “health”, or integrity and to improve sustainability, of an ecosystem. the ability of EPA, other Recognizing the need to track status and trends in agencies and the condition of the nation’s ecological resources, in the scientists to late 1980s EPA established the Environmental Monitoring focus and Assessment Program (EMAP). EMAP supported attention research to identify the most scientifically defensible and where most cost-effective ecological indicators for ecosystems such as needed in coastal waters, wetlands, inland waters and forests.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Implications of the Dynamics of Water Volume Growth in a Reservoir
    ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY Ecological Engineering & Environmental Technology 2021, 22(4), 22–29 Received: 2021.04.22 https://doi.org/10.12912/27197050/137867 Accepted: 2021.05.15 ISSN 2719-7050, License CC-BY 4.0 Published: 2021.06.07 Ecological Implications of the Dynamics of Water Volume Growth in a Reservoir Kartono1*, Purwanto2, Suripin3 1 Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Doctorate Program of Environmental Science, School of Postgraduate Studies, Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang, 50241, Indonesia 2 Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Doctorate Program of Environmental Science, School of Postgraduate Studies, Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang, 50241, Indonesia 3 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Doctorate Program of Environmental Science, School of Postgraduate Studies, Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang, 50241, Indonesia * Corresponding author’s email: [email protected] ABSTRACT The rate of growth of the water volume in the reservoir varies with each charging season. The accuracy of the pre- dictions is required in sustainable reservoir management. Its intrinsic growth rate as an ecological parameter plays a role in determining this speed. This study aimed to analyze the dynamics of water volume growth based on its in- trinsic growth rate to assess the potential for hydrometeorology disasters. The population growth models proposed to be tested for suitability and goodness is the Verhulst, Richards, Comperzt, and modified Malthus model. Test suitability and model goodness were subjected to stages of verification, parameter estimation and model validation based on daily water volume data in the Gembong Reservoir, Pati, Indonesia for the period 2007–2020. A good model is determined based on the Mean Average Percentage Error (MAPE) criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Hickel+-+The+Sustainable+Development+Index.Pdf
    Ecological Economics 167 (2020) 106331 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Ecological Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon The sustainable development index: Measuring the ecological efficiency of T human development in the anthropocene Jason Hickel Goldsmiths, University of London, United Kingdom ABSTRACT When the Human Development Index (HDI) was introduced in the 1990s, it was an important step toward a more sensible measure of progress, one defined less by GDP growth and more by social goals. But the limitations of HDI have become clear in the 21st century, given a growing crisis of climate change and ecological breakdown. HDI pays no attention to ecology, and retains an emphasis on high levels of income that – given strong correlations between income and ecological impact – violates sustainability principles. The countries that score highest on the HDI also contribute most, in per capita terms, to climate change and other forms of ecological breakdown. In this sense, HDI promotes a model of development that is empirically incompatible with ecological stability, and impossible to universalize. In this paper I propose an alternative index that corrects for these problems: the Sustainable Development Index (SDI). The SDI retains the base formula of the HDI but places a sufficiency threshold on per capita income, and divides by two key indicators of ecological impact: CO2 emissions and material footprint, bothcalculatedin per capita consumption-based terms and rendered vis-à-vis planetary boundaries. The SDI is an indicator of strong sustainability that measures nations’ ecological efficiency in delivering human development. 1. Introduction: the quest to overcome the ecological limitations has become the single most widely-used indicator of human develop- of HDI ment.
    [Show full text]